|
BugTraq
MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 06 2004 11:29PM Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com) (3 replies) MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Today Dec 08 2004 01:39AM Pavel Machek (pavel ucw cz) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Today Dec 08 2004 10:23PM Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 07 2004 10:54PM Gandalf The White (gandalf digital net) (4 replies) RE: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 04:01AM David Schwartz (davids webmaster com) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 09:30PM George Georgalis (george galis org) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 04:36AM Gandalf The White (gandalf digital net) (3 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 09:44PM Keith Oxenrider (koxenrider sol-biotech com) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 09:17PM Solar Designer (solar openwall com) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 10:03PM Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 09 2004 01:47AM Pavel Kankovsky (peak argo troja mff cuni cz) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 08:48PM Paul Wouters (paul xtdnet nl) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 08:52PM Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 01:51AM Joel Maslak (jmaslak antelope net) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 12:13AM Tim (tim-security sentinelchicken org) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 06:52PM David F. Skoll (dfs roaringpenguin com) |
|
Privacy Statement |
> I've been doing some analysis on MD5 collision announced by Wang et al.
> Short version: Yes, Virginia, there is no such thing as a safe hash
> collision -- at least in a function that's specified to be
> cryptographically secure. The full details may be acquired at the
> following link:
The short-term fix seems to be something I've been recommending for a
while:
Compute hashes with both SHA-1 and MD5.
The chance of one algorithm becoming compromised in the mid-term is
relatively high IMHO (I was responsible for a PKI system which had to keep
integrity for 20 year periods of time - not an easy task considering what
we don't know about the future). The chance of two becoming compromised
is relatively less. The chance of a problem with MD5 and SHA-1 allowing
two different files to have collisions in both algorithms in *BOTH* is
very very small.
--
Joel
[ reply ]